• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

For talking rot.

@munstermuffin

What are you talking about? Just out of curiosity

@Cruz_del_Sur I think a local moderation will make you atata if you continue your conversation in the RWC thread :p
In Latvia for example if you were born before they became a Republic you can still be filed as Russian and it helps with Visas etc on that side but now obviously it isn't a good thing. Alot of elderly people there soeak Russian still and can't soeak Latvian
 
In Latvia for example if you were born before they became a Republic you can still be filed as Russian and it helps with Visas etc on that side but now obviously it isn't a good thing. Alot of elderly people there soeak Russian still and can't soeak Latvian
You can get there either Russian or Latvian citizenship. You can't have both passports. But if you get a Russian citizenship,than you have to make somehow a Latvian visa (that is almost impossible now) or a one-year residence permit (if you have close Latvian origins/you married a Latvian or you invested a huge amount of money there - that was much easier before the war as well, plus now if you want to acquire/prolongate your one-year permit you have to speak Latvian at some level and pay around 1000 eur every year). Basically, in post-Soviet countries you can't have a double citizenship (but in most post-Soviet countries you can have,for example,1 citizenship of the post-Soviet country + another citizenship of the country that was never a part of the USSR). Like I said before: you can't have both Russian and Latvian passports,but ,as an example,you can have both Russian and Polish passports (because Poland wasn't in the USSR).
 
You can get there either Russian or Latvian citizenship. You can't have both passports. But if you get a Russian citizenship,than you have to make somehow a Latvian visa (that is almost impossible now) or a one-year residence permit (if you have close Latvian origins/you married a Latvian or you invested a huge amount of money there - that was much easier before the war as well, plus now if you want to acquire/prolongate your one-year permit you have to speak Latvian at some level and pay around 1000 eur every year). Basically, in post-Soviet countries you can't have a double citizenship (but in most post-Soviet countries you can have,for example,1 citizenship of the post-Soviet country + another citizenship of the country that was never a part of the USSR). Like I said before: you can't have both Russian and Latvian passports,but ,as an example,you can have both Russian and Polish passports (because Poland wasn't in the USSR).
I never said both. And my point is there that the Irish case is unique but not alone
 
I've been told once that it's correct to say "can" as [ken] but "can't" as [kant]..so,I used to say "I can't" as [aj-kant]..but now (especially after this video) I thought that it sounds a bit uncensored and weird,to some extent.
So, do you say [aj-kant] or you use [aj-kent] in the UK?

The gentleman in the video saying "can't" is South African and the other guy (who is English) thinks he's calling him a *u**. We say "can't" in the UK and although there will be regional dialect variations I'm not aware that it sounds offensive in any part of the UK.
 
The gentleman in the video saying "can't" is South African and the other guy (who is English) thinks he's calling him a *u**. We say "can't" in the UK and although there will be regional dialect variations I'm not aware that it sounds offensive in any part of the UK.
Yes,but I rather meant, how it is correct to pronounce it :
1) can't as [kent],so you just add the "t" to the usual "can"? = I've been told that only Americans pronounce it like that
2) or can't as [kant] so you have a sound "A" (like in a word "far") ?
I've been told the second variant is correct,but I've often heard rather the first variant from English native speakers
 
Yes,but I rather meant, how it is correct to pronounce it :
1) can't as [kent],so you just add the "t" to the usual "can"? = I've been told that only Americans pronounce it like that
2) or can't as [kant] so you have a sound "A" (like in a word "far") ?
I've been told the second variant is correct,but I've often heard rather the first variant from English native speakers

I guess the t in "can't" can be silent when some people (perhaps Americans) say it.
 
That's what happens when you contract 'rent-a-cops' to do your policing and take a cut of the profits.
 
That's what happens when you contract 'rent-a-cops' to do your policing and take a cut of the profits.
The police have zero interest in dealing with littering and fly-tipping. The same as various forms of ASB and noise nuisance. The amount local authorities spend on clearance is absolutely staggering simply because people think it's ok to dump stuff.

I won't go into the amount of people who think it's ok to take a slash or dump in stairwells of flats. It's the poor sods who have to clear it i feel sorry for.
 
The police have zero interest in dealing with littering and fly-tipping. The same as various forms of ASB and noise nuisance. The amount local authorities spend on clearance is absolutely staggering simply because people think it's ok to dump stuff.

I won't go into the amount of people who think it's ok to take a slash or dump in stairwells of flats. It's the poor sods who have to clear it i feel sorry for.

I'm always amazed at how many people don't know how to use public toilets properly. I dread using them now whether it be on planes, trains, pubs or shopping malls. People can''t even aim and just **** or **** all over the seat or floor and just leave it for someone else to clean up.
 
The police have zero interest in dealing with littering and fly-tipping. The same as various forms of ASB and noise nuisance. The amount local authorities spend on clearance is absolutely staggering simply because people think it's ok to dump stuff.

I won't go into the amount of people who think it's ok to take a slash or dump in stairwells of flats. It's the poor sods who have to clear it i feel sorry for.
I think you know that I meant that as a figure of speech and not in reference to literal police.

If you contract enforcement out to a profit making company, expect the enforcement to be as petty as fining you for taking a slash in a layby.

And I bet you any money you won't see these 'enforcers' trying to fine anyone who takes a dump in a stairwell of some flats as they know full well there's a good chance of winding up with a knife in themselves.
 
I'm always amazed at how many people don't know how to use public toilets properly. I dread using them now whether it be on planes, trains, pubs or shopping malls. People can''t even aim and just **** or **** all over the seat or floor and just leave it for someone else to clean up.
Don't know? Or don't care.
 
I often taken a sneaky slash in the bushes when out cycling or walking and need of a comfort break. Think it is taking the **** (literally) to fine someone especially when it's going in soil and am not exposing myself to anyone. Worth a challenge in court what "littering" means and doubt it means what this fella was fined for.
 
Well, had a whole week of the noisy neighbour screeching and waking me up in the early hours. The management company say they are putting together some breach of lease letter as there is a provision about excessive noise being heard outside the flat. Whether they actually do anything is another matter.
 

Latest posts

Top